What can I do about the "grainy" 3ds camera?

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.

TBiggz posted...You made the statement that they are selling at a loss. The burden of proof is on you. I'm still waiting for evidence. And now you made another claim about the causation of the stock fall. Prove that it was because they announced that they're selling at a loss.And Nintendo isn't a reliable source, as I pointed out earlier, because they may have a vested interesting in manipulating the manufacturing costs figures, either way, to influence investors and consumers.

And besides that, that entire line of your argument is a misrepresentation of what I said, which was "they can afford to sell it at $170". Whether or not they are selling it at a loss is irrelevant to that, but I'll let you humor me.

And here is analysis of the component cost:http://www.itproportal.com/2011/03/29/nintendo-3ds-manufacturing-cost-over-100-per-unit/See? I can provide something to back up my statements, which is something that you have consistently failed to do.

Wait, hang on, you're the one who says "they can afford to sell it at $170" and I'm the one who has the burden of proof for presenting an official statement contradicting you? wut?

I'll concede that I only provided correlation rather than causation, considering I can't prove that the 14 point stock drop that happened directly after their announcement was actually caused by an external factor.

They can't afford to sell it at a loss. They can't absorb the cost. They're selling it at a loss in hopes that future software sales will allow them to afford the price they're selling it at, seeing as 3DS is selling like crap. It's a software driven model. You're going to ask me for proof? I'm going to say this as a person who holds shares in Nintendo (Don't pull the bias card, I have shares in Sony and MS too); There's no other reason to sell it at a loss than to have a competitive price point and thus move more hardware, in hopes that you'll move software and make up the difference.

Third, I see exactly zero SOURCES behind that article and a bunch of blatant lies: The Processor is provided by Texas Instruments, there's no mention of the PICA200 GPU or the Fujitsu FCRAM (that's RAM equivalent in performance to DDR3), the motherboard, the internal memory (only a 2GB figure and they don't say it's the SD Card), distribution costs, packaging, cradle or actual cost of manufacturing each unit. YOu just provided me with no proof, NOTHING. I need PROOF, ot a shoddily written article by some no-name site from some firm citing incorrect and incomplete "facts".

you can use color, but max contrast makes it vivid, and max sharpness puts sort of an outline/ink blot effect to your pics (think SFIV3D). it looks awesome on toys, like Gundam kits and tanks and planes and stuff.

The resolution is irrelevant. 0.3MP is fine for what the 3DS does. The picture you see on the 3DS screen is only a quarter of the resolution of that, and 0.3MP is just fine for Facebook. Unless you're having the pictures printed or something, which would seem excessive for a toy camera like the one in the DSi, you don't need a higher resolution. A flash would help the camera much more than a resolution boost. A higher resolution would just mean bigger pictures with the exact same problems.

The resolution is irrelevant. 0.3MP is fine for what the 3DS does. The picture you see on the 3DS screen is only a quarter of the resolution of that, and 0.3MP is just fine for Facebook. Unless you're having the pictures printed or something, which would seem excessive for a toy camera like the one in the DSi, you don't need a higher resolution. A flash would help the camera much more than a resolution boost. A higher resolution would just mean bigger pictures with the exact same problems.

this, but still, I've yet to see gaming software use a camera in a fun way. face raiders was lame.

L0L_FAQ posted...They can't afford to sell it at a loss. They can't absorb the cost. They're selling it at a loss in hopes that future software sales will allow them to afford the price they're selling it at, seeing as 3DS is selling like crap. It's a software driven model. You're going to ask me for proof? I'm going to say this as a person who holds shares in Nintendo (Don't pull the bias card, I have shares in Sony and MS too); There's no other reason to sell it at a loss than to have a competitive price point and thus move more hardware, in hopes that you'll move software and make up the difference.

Third, I see exactly zero SOURCES behind that article and a bunch of blatant lies: The Processor is provided by Texas Instruments, there's no mention of the PICA200 GPU or the Fujitsu FCRAM (that's RAM equivalent in performance to DDR3), the motherboard, the internal memory (only a 2GB figure and they don't say it's the SD Card), distribution costs, packaging, cradle or actual cost of manufacturing each unit. YOu just provided me with no proof, NOTHING. I need PROOF, ot a shoddily written article by some no-name site from some firm citing incorrect and incomplete "facts".

They obviously can afford to sell it at $170, or else they wouldn't have made the decision to so drastically cut the price. There are a myriad of other options that they could have chosen. And they can absorb the costs because of the enormous war chest they built with the Wii and DS. If you understand how a buffer works, then you should be able to apply it to this scenario.And saying that you have shares in Nintendo, MS, and Sony doesn't negate a potential bias. It just shows that you're feebly trying to bring unrelated companies into a discussion about Nintendo's 3DS. In fact, you have a vested interest in the company. This both explains your selective reading and questions your motives.Thirdly, the article cited an iSuppli breakdown. iSuppli is an independent company which is well respected and trusted specifically for its breakdowns and component cost estimates. They've been cited numerous times for a variety of products. Unlike Nintendo, they don't have an interest in distorting the figures - figures which Nintendo didn't even provide. And you haven't cited a single "blatant lie" and provided what the actual "truth" is. You baselessly attacked a reputable company which excels at its job.

TBiggz posted...They obviously can afford to sell it at $170, or else they wouldn't have made the decision to so drastically cut the price. There are a myriad of other options that they could have chosen. And they can absorb the costs because of the enormous war chest they built with the Wii and DS. If you understand how a buffer works, then you should be able to apply it to this scenario.And saying that you have shares in Nintendo, MS, and Sony doesn't negate a potential bias. It just shows that you're feebly trying to bring unrelated companies into a discussion about Nintendo's 3DS. In fact, you have a vested interest in the company. This both explains your selective reading and questions your motives.Thirdly, the article cited an iSuppli breakdown. iSuppli is an independent company which is well respected and trusted specifically for its breakdowns and component cost estimates. They've been cited numerous times for a variety of products. Unlike Nintendo, they don't have an interest in distorting the figures - figures which Nintendo didn't even provide. And you haven't cited a single "blatant lie" and provided what the actual "truth" is. You baselessly attacked a reputable company which excels at its job.

Okay, let me put this simply for you, as explaining things in a traditional manner seems to be too difficult to comprehend;